Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
 on: December 27, 2010, 05:50:41 AM 
Started by trailblazer11 - Last post by Ayes
How bout  "Ayes on the Future"

 on: December 27, 2010, 05:50:07 AM 
Started by trailblazer11 - Last post by Ayes
I'm going to throw in my vote against that slogan, because it comes off as harsh. I might come to love it, but I think we'd better keep a positive face to other parties, because we are going to have to function alongside them.

 on: December 27, 2010, 05:43:00 AM 
Started by Ayes - Last post by Ayes
The Pirate Party has a role to fill in contemporary politics.

We live in a new digital world, but our politics are out of touch. The world needs a tech-minded party for the benefit of the people. If when we fight in wars we're fighting for peace and democracy this is the inevitable future of humanity.

Pirate Party has to step up to the plate, and be the open minded, philosophical, tech-minded, internet understanding political party. We need to be champions of the new age of understanding, aided by the technological innovation of the previous generations. This is the new civil rights movement, we have hope of changing the world for the better, and making the future a better place for our children and their children. Justice, democracy, freedom.

We will be the voice of people who aren't seeing the true benefits of the technology that surrounds them. Pirate Party is the Internet & Knowledge & Technology party. Naturally, pro net neutrality, digital rights, open source, eyes on the future. We should have our finger on the pulse of all internet issues. We are the reasonable, law-abiding couch-sitting revolution.

The future has sent an e-mail to the present. Pirate Party.

This is big talk from a small man, I know, but I want to believe that these digital issues will have a voice stand up for them, and we will be that voice.

 on: December 26, 2010, 12:17:20 AM 
Started by psema4 - Last post by Nuitari
International trade is good for canada because we are mainly a resource producing country.

The problem with CETA and ACTA is that they aren't really free trade treaties but ways to hammer in IP law changes for few benefits.

 on: December 24, 2010, 12:25:54 PM 
Started by Johann - Last post by Johann
I think another hot-topic button (either media overstated or understated I am not sure) is the whole caribou herd population number declining, as well as the polar bears being designated as endanger species, and the ban on seal-product from Europe.

You got the Inuits saying that declining are not happening and that numbers are actually increasing (caribou and polar bears) while scientists are saying the opposite. Could greater government transparency (federal and civic) actually help solves this? Or does this solution requires something else?

There are several different caribou herds and not all aboriginal groups are in agreement about the amount of the decline or what action to take.  Continuing seismic work and road building could have very serious adverse effect on the herds long term.

Government transparency is always beneficial but there are other issues that affect decision making: jurisdiction, unresolved land claims, lack of trust, and quite simply the food needs of some communities.

Polar bear population is more of a high profile concern in the eastern arctic but sport hunts are a source of much needed revenue in the communities around where I live.  Some of my wife's family has been involved in them for years, there aren't a lot of employment options in most northern community.  Subsistence hunting is a way of life for many and sport hunts are, as I said, a needed revenue source.  

 on: December 23, 2010, 03:24:58 PM 
Started by trailblazer11 - Last post by Mikkel Paulson
I think it's perfectly acceptable to attack existing policy in moderation as an illustration why we're needed. Attacking the character and motives of others, on the other hand, is an unacceptable approach to politics.

 on: December 23, 2010, 03:20:56 PM 
Started by psema4 - Last post by Sean Hunt
I don't think this would be a good idea for three reasons.

First, as has been mentioned, we do not need more committees. All this organizational structure is good, but without people to help out, nothing will happen.

Second, this is really already in the domain of the Platform Information committee, or of the Federal Council which is late on delivering the platform.

Third, international trade is not really a core issue, nor do I believe it should become one. There's far more to international trade than just selling our souls, and while we don't like that bit, we can speak out perfectly fine against it without focusing on the rest of trade.

 on: December 23, 2010, 02:53:30 PM 
Started by trailblazer11 - Last post by psema4
You're all over thinking it.   Here's my offering:

Vote for us because we wont screw you over.     Grin

Short and sweet! 

I like this one for a few reasons.  For one It is short and sweet.  For another it's a bold statement for a party to make, one that I think a great many voters can relate to.  Yet another is that it introduces a certain language into public politics that, while not quite swearing, is both strong and effective.

 on: December 23, 2010, 02:16:48 PM 
Started by psema4 - Last post by psema4
I've been thinking about this for several months and am wondering if there's enough interest to warrant moving for the creation of an International Trade Committee.

First off, and if I read Mikkel right, I'm wholly in agreement with him about having too many committees and a lack of manpower to properly utilize them.

Unfortunately I see International Trade as the largest threat to Canadian sovereignty in recent years and quite frankly bi- and multilateral agreements like ACTA and CETA scare the crap out of me.  From my perspective these agreements are designed to undermine our legislative frameworks to favor industry from outside (current) Canadian jurisdiction.

Since I began watching trade agreements I've yet to see compelling evidence that we should be trading our legislation, infrastructure and other fundamentals of Canadian society for little more than "the right" to operate (or expand) Canadian business interests in others' markets.

I'm extremely curious what other members think about this matter; if there's support I'll move for the creation of a committee at the January General Meeting.

Edit: To reiterate from prior postings: I don't disbelieve in capitalism or international trade.  I do however dare to believe in balance and to not believe in the ability of either the Conservatives and Liberals to do what's in the best interest of Canadians in this regard.

 on: December 23, 2010, 02:16:42 PM 
Started by trailblazer11 - Last post by Ayes
how about "100100101101101010"

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10